the new features are meant to enhance the graphical quality and achievable realism, as well as making opengl more competitive with microsoft's directx. the first products showing off what version 1.4 can do should be seen later this year.

this is probably the last update before the move over to opengl 2.0, which will see major advancements in the code set. the arb is working on a higher-level language that impacts programmability while maintaining backwards-compatibility, and has also promised advancements for shaders.

matthew's opinion
having used both directx and opengl i have to say from a beginner's point of view that i prefer opengl. not only is it easier to get up and running, but it does not change every year or so. directx 7 needed a couple of pages of code just to set up; directx 8 condensed this down to a couple of functions; and apparently directx 9 is going back to the v7 way of doing things (if rumors are to be believed). if you are new to games programming on the pc then opengl is definitely the best place to start in my opinion, and you can achieve aaa titles with it–just look at quake 1, 2, and 3 and john carmack's continuing loyalty.

also notice that the vertex programming framework is mentioned above. this is what microsoft claims is its ip, as we reported last week.

the introduction of a higher level language in version 2.0 could make using opengl even easier, or it might be something similar to the new nvidia cg laguage. we'll have to wait and see.

user comments 65 comment(s)

opengl vs. directx(9:51am est thu jul 18 2002)i seen and used both, directx is much harder to use, opengl is much simpler, i will admit i don't write games as my main thing, but i do use them from time to time and opengl just works better. – by dr

i just wonder….(10:06am est thu jul 18 2002)…if some of these older opengl cards (oxygen gmx, wildcat 4000, etc.) that currently support opengl 1.2 will be able to run 1.4, or even have drivers released to do so. or instead we'll just all be expected to get new cards–again.

however, i saw the specs on the wildcat vp recently, if i could come up with $1200 short of robbing a bank i'd pounce all over one. 200 gigaflops! mama! – by ziwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwi

as long as you run windows (majority of the pc game market including xbox)you'd need only directx that is supported by all major video/sound card manufactures.

get real guys, opengl is old days. put it in the same direction you did put your old commodore64 and amiga.– by getreal

re: getreal(10:26am est thu jul 18 2002)opengl is used in several (all maybe?) professional cad and 3d graphics programs. several of the video cards i have support only opengl, and it's a lot better than trying to plot a render in software mode or direct3d. – by ziwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwi

re: ziwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwi(10:40am est thu jul 18 2002)well the reason cad supports it is because they have legacy code.all of them were developed long time ago. so, they keep making new versions (to ern money) but not changing ther core graph engine.

i'll bet that some of them would switch to directx. it has better performance and algorithms (evel opengl guys stealing them to catch up)– by win32

i agree, direct x is implemented in windows but…..(11:36am est thu jul 18 2002)this world needs free standards! not anything owned by anyone. opengl is better only because of it being a standard not shoved down youer throatn by m$. – by pissed off

i am not a fan of microsoft, but i must say that windows games using direct x look much nicer than the opengl ones.

i obviously am not a programmer, so i cannot speak to which is easier, i'll take geek.com's readers word that directx is harder and does change (as seems typical for microsoft stuff), however, where would opengl and the 3d graphics world (games, mainly) be today without directx?

i would argue for opengl based on the fact that mac and linux (and whatever else) can utilize it (i assume with minimal code changing). what if ms opened up directx for mac/linux? would it be more accepted?

curious,– by myrkat

open gl(1:04pm est thu jul 18 2002)don't know if any of you have played half life and its mod's especially counter strike. you can run the game in either software, directx or open gl mode, and software and directx both have poor fps, and quality compared to opengl.– by nigel

re: nigel(2:58pm est thu jul 18 2002)may be you did run it on hardware that did not support dirextx. then it is quite possible.otherwise, directx has much better support from major video hardware developers:ati, nvidia, tnt…– by win32

myrkat(2:59pm est thu jul 18 2002)“i am not a fan of microsoft, but i must say that windows games using direct x look much nicer than the opengl ones.”

quake iii looks damn good to me and runs way faster than a lot of dx games i have. i'm also a programmer and directx is very similar to opengl but they change it all the time which makes it impossible, just as you learn version 7 version 8 comes out then 9. and it will never stop. opengl is far better documented and doesn't change constantly, i use both becuase i have to but i love opengl!! – by nameless programmer

ermmm ati and nvidia sit on the arb (even ms does) so as far of hardware suport goes … opengl is suported by all majour hardware manufacturers and please when comparing its d3d v opengl not directx. directx is suite of api's govening a wide variety of things.

cad programs use opengl cause its stable and not because they are lazy programmers. – by zerosignull

opengl(7:27pm est thu jul 18 2002)opengl gets my vote. i'm a programmer and everytime i start directx programming it takes a long time til the initialization code is up and running and not crashing. when i started opengl i was up and running in hours with zero crashes. – by buckets

just because i think microsoft sucks ass…(8:55pm est thu jul 18 2002)i'd prefer opengl. i am a die hard gamer, and i can tell you on my system opengl games run considerably easier and hog less resources than directx. now as for which looks better? what do i care, i got a geforce4 ti4600. it doesn't matter what i use…it always looks good =). ps…did i mention bill gates is a pole smoker??? – by axeman the almighty

not to mention…(9:18pm est thu jul 18 2002)…opengl doesn't require any licensing fees, has the standards open and documented, and makes it a wee bit easier to use appies on os's like irix. stability has it's virtues….. – by ziwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwi

re: axeman the almighty(11:00am est fri jul 19 2002)projecting your fantasys agian? hes really not that good looking you should up your standards… – by next362″

open gl(7:09pm est fri jul 19 2002)open gl is the best. wanna know why?– you don't need windows. in the world of 3d cad, windows just plain sucks. linux is better to work. and what about mac users? did you forget them?

– is easier. i'm beginning to program games and i find open gl easier than d3d.

– i don't like ms. who does? – by the guy

gamers vs the world(1:19pm est sat jul 20 2002)a lot of comments from gamers don't really have a basis for opinion whether a game runs in one api or another is inconsequential if the game looks pretty. (this comes from seeing endless advertisements on games' prettiness over other features.) comparing directx games to opengl games is impossible (and rather dumb) because games are generally developed with one api in mind, then later ported to the other without designing a game engine specifically for a given api (see ultima ix's great performance in glide but poor direct3d performace), the “afterthought” api support is, at worst, terrible.

from a game developer's perspective, opengl is quicker to get up and running, is implemented in the c-language (as opposed to the more-overheaded directx which uses c++ and com methodology). both have their merits and drawbacks, but opengl suffers from graphics card vendors releasing custom extensions which may or may not have arb backing. this makes it difficult for the developer to program a graphics engine that supports effects equally across all video cards. directx's frequent (i.e. annual) updates allow developers to upgrade their engines' technologies with the newest and cutting-edge-est effects.

the result, from the end-user's point of view? aggressive marketing strategies to $buy$buy$buy$ the latest and fastest graphics hardware, but at a harsh cost of games being nothing more than eyecandy to show off hardware and encourage hardware pissing contests between gamers.

if the arb were a little more aggressive with updating opengl, or at least in enforcing some commonality between vendors' extensions, the more advanced opengl capabilities would mean faster game development time, which in turn might result in better games from a non-graphical standpoint.– by matrixł

kind of a pointless argument.(10:23pm est sat jul 20 2002)this is fairly pointless because the only cards that support opengl better than direct3d is the old 3dfx lines of chips, mind you ati, matrox, and nvidia all support direct3d better than better than opengl why would it quite matter when any new cards are going to be pt in decent computers which can run all the new games quite well. as for comparing opengl to directx it is pointless, directx encompasses direct3d and plain directx is software graphics engines. – by jbalkwill

cg for gl or dx(3:40pm est tue jul 23 2002)will cg be implimented for direct x, or opengl, or for both?

maybe i got the whole comcept of cg wrong. but i understood it as a high level language for coding game engines and games in that produce then the required assembly to run the engine or game.

will it create assembly for dx or ogl? or is it upto the game coder if he wants his engine/game to be for dx or ogl? – by dx2

for directx(12:01pm est fri aug 09 2002)i hate! microsoft with all of my beingbut they have done a good job with direct3d8 (or direct graphics) so i will side with the evil billy g – by x

nice (4:45pm est wed aug 28 2002)good – by evo

opengl is better!(3:24pm est thu aug 29 2002)directx has much better support from major video cards the best video cards will support both opengl and directx!people who knows what 3d quality means will say yes to opengl.– by aa

if your interest in 3d is only about games? maybe d3d will make the job, but for professional computer graphics projects, opengl is the api (and sorry for my english) – by industrieprog

opengl rules(2:43pm est mon oct 28 2002)i mean comeon it's opensource for one so anyone can contribute to its development+ if you're a developer you reach a wider platform of users at a lower cost since if your using opengl/sdl(simple direct media layer) you can jsut compile the code on multiple platforms and wola it works on everything from windowes to mac to linux(even solaris..but i don't think gamers use solaris to much lmao. – by aselus

for the getreal guy:(2:49pm est mon oct 28 2002)umm no offence but directx is getting alot worse with new versions in comparison to opengl devlopment, speaking as a programmer that's used both, it is alot better….plus if you're really a hardcore gamer, play a game that plays on linux and windows…and see how much better it plays on linux compared to windows…it's a superior platform because it can devote clock cycles to the game, whereas windows sometimes sneaks in the stupidest background apps…no offence but opengl is superior in almost every sence(and sdl is supperior to win32 base as well) …the only reason i see to use directx right now is directplay, because socket programming for games is kind'a hard and it simplifies it alot!…especialy when you have mmorpg massive packets to distribute in between clients….though there are improvements in open code that are starting to even push directplay off it's pedistal. i may hate windows but outside of that, speaking from experience opengl is a superior platform…sorry to ruin your dreams :-( – by aselus

bill(3:29am est mon nov 25 2002)in my opinion directx should only be used only in extreme circumstances(billy putting a gun to your head). i mean come on it was designed by a company whose main goal is to make money not great programs.that is why they update it so often, it is mostly a marketing ploy. anyway every game i play i do my best to run it in opengl if it is not already the default setting, it runs smoother looks better and does not stink of microshaft (some of those games include cs, ut, and quake 3). – by humble gamer

alexander_anderson_the_mad_priest(6:41am est sat dec 21 2002)well the battle continues, well in my opinion i would go for opengl. just compare the elegance and sophistication of the kernel osx has vs xp, osx has transparicies, shadows, bright sharpe image. hell the hole kernels power comes from quartz extreme, adobe and opengl and apple have created one bad ass kernel. osx was runing opengl 1.2 today it has been upgrade to 1.4 and ive already see drastic changes, when 2.0 pops up it will be god.well people say well apple suck, but the truth is apple kicks ass in graphics, video and music, fuck they have gramy's to prove it, if apple belives in opengl, hell me too, microsoft has recently said the direct x will ask power fom the graphics card ,and people say wow, never before seen, but the truth is osx 10.2 was the first one to include that with opengl tecnology, hell apple has a digital conection between the monitor and graphics card what does it mean, the signal never becomes analog and no los of quality,aselus is right compare games that are running in a opengl enviorment, compare quake 3 mac version (opengl) with quake 3 (directx)xp. – by the priest

opengl vs directx(12:48pm est fri feb 21 2003)hi!

of course you can`t say that this one is good, and the other is a piece of shit. the main difference, that microsoft investing tons of money into dx to push it upper and upper, so that is why you can touch new hardware features via directx inteface sooner. opengl developing slower, but has got a much matured, and well designed basic structure. actually i would say, that opengl steps slower but bigger…the idea that opengl is somekind of outdated technology is obviously bogus.

take care guys! – by krix

opengl runs better everywhere(3:04pm est wed mar 26 2003)did you all note the main defensors of directx are those kids who nows only games on ms platform ?they forget to look around and see other worlds as linux, mac, as professional cad platforms, etc.opengl is easier to program, and is well supported today by all good manufacturers (nvidia/ati and others).has advanced effects, and these effects are easy to archieve, not ask for 20k lines of code, each one with a trap to programmer as directx is.and is no good be in the hands of a proprietary solution. soon or later you will pay the price. vide 3dfx and his glide api. – by herrgaton

directx (the whole api, not just d3d) is structured better than opengl. it uses oop and com, technology that yields as anyone sho knows shit agree, better structured code. however, these technology can cause some function calling and dereferencing overhead which can slow the games down a bit.

the choice of api has no effect whatsoever on the look of the game… get that clear please… tough some features might be easier to implement and or quicker on some api, but they are pretty equal on that level.– by tesselate

heh(3:31pm est fri jan 16 2004)tesselate what you are saying is that directx is easier, but slower than opengl. i'll agree with that.

next you say the api has no effect on the look of the game. if that is true, then the choice is clear to use opengl. it's faster as you said and the look is equal.extra bonus for being cross platform! – by paul

does riva support opengl 1.4 ?(2:46am est mon jan 26 2004)yeah i'v just got star wars kotor and it won't run on my riva tnt2 m64 because it says it needs opengl 1.4. if riva supports this opengl, how do i get it ? – by shape shifter

getting open gl 1.4(1:54am est wed feb 11 2004)i just bought a new compaq laptop and got swkotor and it says i fail in video when i have a radeon igp 64mb, it says i need at least 32mb and open gl…. how do i get that, and what does it all mean? – by tblazin

fhtfxhfrthj(9:43am est wed mar 03 2004)– by sththtyj

an long time 3d engine developer(1:44am est thu jul 29 2004)i started with cpm and i was doing ms 3d stuff when it was just starting. it was madness at the start and it's madness now. do you remember retained mode? i breathed fresh air and my life completely changed when i switched to opengl. you can fool all the people some of the time and you can fool some of the people all the time(getreal) but you can't fool all the people all the time. – by wisdom

opengl 2.0 and directx 9.1(7:49pm est sat jan 15 2005)i'm interested to see what will happen when opengl 2.0 takes off. i think it'll greatly diminish any advantage directx 9.1 has while retaining all the advantages opengl has over directx.

i personally don't mind microsoft sometimes, but then again, i never pay for their products (they're way to over priced). i use windowsxp pro sp2 exclusivly. but from what i've seen of directx (the programming aspect), opengl is a far better platform. but i love the competition, it keeps everyone on their toes.

i've also seen that ati devotes more resources to accelerating directx and i hope they change this soon because i like them better than nvidia, but if they don't properly support opengl, they're gonna have problems. already most linux people use nvidia just for driver support. – by comp-sci student

i need help!(10:35pm est sat feb 26 2005)doe anybody know where i can upgrade or download opengl 1.4. i currently have opengl 1.36 and require 1.4 to play star wars kotor ii. any help would be greatly appreciated. thanks – by darren

direct seeds ani(3:53am est tue mar 08 2005)– by direct-seeds-ani-o–

opengl(11:02pm est wed mar 23 2005)i do not know how to dowload it – by yeyo

opengl(11:02pm est wed mar 23 2005)i do not know how to download it – by yeyo

opengl 1.4(3:04pm est thu mar 23 2006)i got kotor recentally, how do i get 1.4 opengl, i've got 1.0, is it a download or a chip or what? – by scuzzlebutt

open gl 1.4(9:15pm est sat apr 01 2006)i need this as well. can anyone please help me? – by simbrian

888(4:40am est mon apr 03 2006)– by 888

opengl 1.4(10:58pm est sun apr 30 2006)i need it too…. – by probe

opengl download(10:56pm est fri may 12 2006)i've got the same problem. wierdly enough though, before i got my computer's motherboard replaced, kotor worked just fine, but now that my comp has a new motherboard it says i dont have the right version!

please help – by jimmy

opengl 1.4(4:28am est fri may 19 2006)write me from where i can download it.i can't wait any more – by donky

opengl(10:22am est tue jun 06 2006)same opengl problem! i need to download opengl latest version. anyone know from where can i get it. – by ab

i cant play kotor(2:32am est sat jun 10 2006)i have met all the system requirements that are required for playing star wars kotor but still i couldnot star t the game it is showing an error message whenever im triying to start the game can any body find a solution to my problemmail me to vickysworld9@gmail.com – by vicky

please help(10:09pm est sat jun 10 2006)how do i download open gl 1.4 so i can play star woars jedi knight:jedi academy – by help

i can't play kotor2 either…(10:06pm est wed jul 05 2006)please help me…i can't play it either because i don't have the opengl1.4 can someone email the link or whatever to kohler06@gmail.com…thanks people! – by zeppelin_85

same problem(9:31am est wed aug 09 2006)where do i download open gl? whitout it i cant play staw wars – by ineedopengl